Dds-satzspiegel

5. Classroom learning – only storing and reproducing? 
The popularity of Vester’s learning theory and its variants can give some insight into the way in which pu-
pils’ minds are strained during classroom learning.
Since pupils learn in order to get good marks, “understanding” of a thought expressed (by the teacher) is in 
fact often limited to its reproductability. Examining an idea in terms of its plausibility is not part of the 
agenda. 
Very often the forms of acquiring knowledge are limited to the use of the memory even as regards subjects 
where this is not appropriate. It is true that learning vocabulary like for instance the English word for table 
and chair can only be memorized not deduced. Understanding and remembering are key differences already 
in math. This is what pupils experience in their next test at the latest if they have learned a formula or a 
mathematic proof by heart rather than having tried to really understand it.
Since in standard tests more in-depth knowledge is not required but much rather the fast and reliable repro-
duction of facts and solution patterns pupils might even be more successful when adopting the less de-
manding surface strategies to get a good mark. Therefore in-depth mental processing does not necessarily 
generate better classroom performance (in the form of marks). The requirement of the learning environment 
determines the learning orientation.
These assumptions about the current requirements with respect to classroom performance match the 
findings of the TIMS-Study (cf. Baumert et al. 1997). It is significant that German pupils are relatively ef-
fective in solving routine tasks and reproducing factual knowledge. They fail, however, in solving more 
complex, cognitively demanding tasks requiring conceptual understanding or flexible application of know-

---

7 
ledge. In addition, deficits in problem-solving as well as scientific thinking and reasoning skills become 
apparent.
There are hardly any surveys to date on the subjective theories teachers and pupils hold or on the relation-
ship between their everyday concepts about learning and scientific learning theories. A study by Schletter 
and Bayrhuber (1998) on pupils’ ideas about the subject “learning and memory” and its neurobiological 
and psychological principles provides significant hints which support hypotheses about the kinds of re-
quirements of classroom learning. Individual results of the study showed that concepts of what classroom 
learning is about are characterized as remembering (storing) and reproduction (unmodified reproduction) of 
knowledge (scientific insights). 
When asked how they prepared for written tests, respondents claimed to apply mainly reproductive learning 
strategies. Only very few take the effort to restructure actively the contents to be newly learned and, conse-
quently, make understanding easier. Interestingly, information processing with the respondents (n = 20; 
specialized course biology, upper secondary level) is confined to sorting and storing of what is absorbed 
through the senses: “Accordingly, in the view of almost two thirds of the pupils information flows directly 
from the outside world via the sense organs into the short term memory and afterwards into the long-term 
memory” (p. 26). Last but not least the experiences pupils make with school tests may well be responsible 
for their belief that further processing of information through thinking processes might be less important for 
learning since the reproduction of learned contents seems to be key for passing tests.
In addition, the concept of memory molecules as an information store described also in this study is preva-
lent - and can still be found in the updated (!) 25. edition of “Denken, Lernen, Vergessen“ 
[Learning, 
Thinking Forgetting
] (Vester 1998). 
From these analyses the popularity can be explained of Verster’s theory and of books on “learning to learn” 
containing mainly mnemotechniques as well as details about the management of resources. And the reader 
does not expect anything but tips and tricks of how to memorize as much information as possible in such a 
way as to reproduce it “blindly” at least until the next test. This is where these books can actually be of real 
assistance (Useful books regarding this and can do without learning types are e.g.: Adl-Amini 1989, Endres 
et al. 1994, Miller 1993). 
Also teachers know that this is the way how things are. However, the selection function of schools is con-
sidered by many critical pedagogues as un unpleasant side effect rather than the yardstick of learning at 
school. And so they try hard to exercise as much justice as possible. To this end the learning types seem an 
apt and just tool. A lot of effort is put into experiencing and having fun and stimulating every sense, that is 
learning through all senses. And it is not surprising that an olfactory learning type can be found in litera-
ture.
The differences in the achievement levels that still occur call for an explanation. But be it as it may: In any 
case as a teacher your mind can be at rest because you know about the different “basic patterns” of percep-
tion and learning and you have taken the effort of “broadcasting” on different “wavelengths”. However, 
hardly any criticism of this theory can be heard and of pupils’ learning effort that aims only at achieving the 
required marks. 
Let us assume the good intentions of teachers to help pupils and to do justice to all pupils. In view of what 
effects these theories might have on pupils their wide dissemination is very disconcerting if not disastrous 
indeed: Must pupils not be completely disheartened if they are not able to see how biological, physical and 
other knowledge grow quasi “naturally” from practical action although they are told that this is exactly the 
case? How will the pupils who are most reflective not come to the conclusion that they are not talented 
enough to acquire this knowledge? Do pupils not have to despair of the fact that they cannot think of any 
action at all which might enable them to at least remember the knowledge they have not understood?